Wednesday, January 30, 2008

"Each species of mammal-like reptile that has been found appears suddenly in the fossil record and is not preceded by the species that is directly ancestral to it. It disappears some time later, equally abruptly, without leaving a directly descended species." [ New Scientist vol. 93 No. 1295, The Reptiles that became Mammals, by Tom Kemp, March 4, 1982, p. 581.]

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

"Although extinct now, the trilobite nevertheless speaks to us today concerning ingenious design and purposiveness in nature. Unlike the lens of a human eye, which is composed of living, organic tissues, trilobite eyes were composed of inorganic calcite. Consequently, many trilobite lenses have been preserved in the fossil record allowing paleontologists to study them. What they have discovered is truly impressive.

Unlike human eyes which are composed of a single lens, trilobite eyes have a very special double lens design with anywhere from 100 to 15,000 lenses in each eye, depending on the subspecies. This special design allowed the trilobites to see underwater perfectly, without distortion. Implicit knowledge of Abbe’s Sine Law, Fermat’s Principle, and various other principles of optics are inherent in the design of these lenses. They appear to have been carefully designed by a very knowledgeable physicist, and indeed, the creationist would agree---they were!”

Sunday, January 27, 2008

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle."- Francis Crick, Nobel Prize winner, "Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature", 1981 (p. 88)

Saturday, January 26, 2008

"Some evolutionary biologists are of the opinion that it is not necessarily the fittest that survive through the evolutionary process, but those that are best adapted to the requirements of evolution. Others have emphasized that survival of the organism is not as important as its fecundity. In both cases the problem of predictability remains. In a symposium volume celebrating 100 years of Darwinism the prominent geneticist Waddington (1960, p. 385) evaluates the matter of fecundity. He states:

Natural selection, which was at first considered as though it were a hypothesis that was in need of experimental or observational confirmation, turns out on closer inspection to be a tautology, a statement of inevitable although previously unrecognized relation. It states that the fittest individuals in a population (defined as those which leave most offspring) will leave most offspring.

Another problem associated with the untestability of evolutionary theory is that the theory explains too much. Grene (1959) points out that "whatever might at first sight appear as evidence against the theory is assimilated by redefinition into the theory." Evolutionary theory is broad enough to accommodate almost any data that may be applied. Two ecologists Birch and Ehrlich (1967) emphasize this. They state:

Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus 'outside of empirical science' but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it.

No matter what is observed, there usually is an appropriate evolutionary explanation for it. If an organ or organism develops, it has positive survival value; if it degenerates, it has negative survival value. If a complex biological system appears suddenly, it is due to preadaptation. "Living fossils" (contemporary representatives of organisms expected to be extinct) survive because the environment did not change. If the environment changes and an evolutionary lineage survives, it is due to adaptation. If the lineage dies, it is because the environment changed too much, etc. Hence the concept cannot be falsified. Platnick (1977) states that this type of situation "makes of evolutionary biologists spinners of tales, bedtime storytellers, instead of empirical investigators."

Friday, January 25, 2008

"The explanatory doctrines of biological evolution do not stand up to an objective, in-depth criticism. They prove to be either in conflict with reality or else incapable of solving the major problems involved."(Pierre-P. Grasse', Evolution of Living Organisms [New York: Academic Press, 1977], p. 202)

Thursday, January 24, 2008

"Evolutionary theory has been enshrined as the centerpiece of our educational system, and elaborate walls have been erected around it to protect it from unnecessary abuse. - - What the 'record' shows is nearly a century of fudging and finagling by scientists attempting to force various fossil morsels and fragments to conform with Darwin's notions, all to no avail. Today the millions of fossils stand as very visible, ever-present reminders of the paltriness of the arguments and the overall shabbiness of the theory that marches under the banner of evolution."(Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny [New York: Viking Press, 1983], pp. 112, 125)

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

"The theory of evolution is universally accepted not because it can be proved by logical, coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible!"(D.M.S. Watson, Scientist)

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

“How is it possible for the earth’s population to reach 6.5 billion people if the world is only about 6,000 years old and if there were just two humans in the beginning?” Here is what a little bit of simple arithmetic shows us.

Let us start in the beginning with one male and one female. Now let us assume that they marry and have children and that their children marry and have children and so on. And let us assume that the population doubles every 150 years. Therefore, after 150 years there will be four people, after another 150 years there will be eight people, after another 150 years there will be sixteen people, and so on. It should be noted that this growth rate is actually very conservative. In reality, even with disease, famines, and natural disasters, the world population currently doubles every 40 years or so.

After 32 doublings, which is only 4,800 years, the world population would have reached almost 8.6 billion. That’s 2 billion more than the current population of 6.5 billion people, which was recorded by the U.S. Census Bureau on March 1, 2006. This simple calculation shows that starting with Adam and Eve and assuming the conservative growth rate previously mentioned, the current population can be reached well within 6,000 years.

IMPACT OF THE FLOOD

We know from the Bible, however, that around 2500 BC (4,500 years ago) the worldwide Flood reduced the world population to eight people. But if we assume that the population doubles every 150 years, we see, again, that starting with only Noah and his family in 2500 BC, 4,500 years is more than enough time for the present population to reach 6.5 billion.

Evolutionists are always telling us that humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years. If we did assume that humans have been around for 50,000 years and if we were to use the calculations above, there would have been 332 doublings, and the world’s population would be a staggering figure—a one followed by 100 zeros; that is

This figure is truly unimaginable, for it is billons of times greater than the number of atoms that are in the entire universe! Such a calculation makes nonsense of the claim that humans have been on earth for tens of thousands of years.

Simple, conservative arithmetic reveals clear mathematical logic for a young age of the earth. From two people, created around 6,000 years ago, and then the eight people, preserved on the Ark about 4,500 years ago, the world’s population could have grown to the extent we now see it—over 6.5 billion."

Monday, January 21, 2008

“One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet we are here—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.”(George Wald, Harvard professor and Nobel Prize winner)

Sunday, January 20, 2008

"In Dr. Robert Morey’s book The New Atheism and the Erosion of Freedom, he talks with an atheist about this issue. The atheist assumes that everything is relative, and there are no absolutes (he is absolutely sure of that). Morey replies that the first thing an atheist must do is prove the existence of evil. By what process can an atheist identify evil? He must have a universal absolute to do so. Without an absolute reference point for "good" (which only God can provide), no one can identify what is good or evil. Thus without the existence of God, there is no "evil" or "good" in an absolute sense. Everything is relative. The problem of evil does not negate the existence of God. It actually requires it.

Many assume that because evil still exists today, God has not dealt with it. How can atheists assume that God has not already solved the problem of evil in such a way that neither His goodness nor omnipotence is limited? On what grounds do they limit what God can and cannot do to solve the problem? God has already solved the problem of evil. And He did it in a way in which He did not contradict His nature or the nature of man. We assume God will solve the problem of evil in one single act. But why can’t He deal with evil in a progressive way? Can’t He deal with it throughout time as we know it, and then bring it to the climax on the Day of Judgment?

God sent His Son to die on the cross in order to solve the problem of evil. Christ atoned for evil and secured the eventual removal of all evil from the earth. One day evil will be quarantined in one spot called "hell." Then there will be a perfect world devoid of all evil. If God declared that all evil would, at this moment, cease to exist, you and I and all of humanity would go up in a puff of smoke. Divine judgment demands that sin be punished."

Saturday, January 19, 2008

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." [Stephen Jay Gould, Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging? Paleobiology, Vol. 6, January 1980, p. 127. Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University.]

Friday, January 18, 2008

"The God of the New Testament is the same as the God of the Old Testament. The Bible says that He never changes. He is just as merciful in the Old Testament as He is in the New Testament. Read Nehemiah 9 for a summary of how God mercifully forgave Israel, again and again, after they repeatedly sinned and turned their back on Him. The psalms often speak of God’s mercy poured out on sinners.

He is also just as wrath-filled in the New Testament as He is in the Old. He killed a husband and wife in the Book of Acts, simply because they told one lie. Jesus warned that He was to be feared because He has the power to cast the body and soul into Hell. The apostle Paul said that he persuaded men to come to the Savior because he knew the "terror of the Lord." Read the dreadful judgments of the New Testament’s Book of Revelation. That will put the "fear of God" in you, which incidentally is "the beginning of wisdom."

Perhaps the most fearful display of His wrath is seen in the cross of Jesus Christ. His fury so came upon the Messiah that it seems God enshrouded the face of Jesus in darkness so that creation couldn’t gaze upon His unspeakable agony. Whether we like it or not, our God is a consuming fire of holiness (Hebrews 12:29). He isn’t going to change, so we had better ...before the Day of Judgment. If we repent, God, in His mercy, will forgive us and grant us eternal life in heaven with Him."

Thursday, January 17, 2008

"Links are missing just where we most fervently desire them, and it is all too probable that many ‘links' will continue to be missing." [Jepsen, L. Glenn; Mayr, Ernst; Simpson George Gaylord. Genetics, Paleontology, and Evolution, New York, Athenaeum, 1963 p. 114.]

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

"Many new groups of plants and animals suddenly appear, apparently without any close ancestors. Most major groups of organisms--phyla, subphyla and even classes--have appeared in this way. This aspect of the record is real, not merely the result of faulty or biased collecting. A satisfactory explanation of evolution must take it into consideration and provide an explanation...The fossil record, which has produced the problem, is not much help in its solution." [The Evolution of Life by Everett C. Olson. The New American Library, New York and Toronto. 1965. p. 94.]

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

"The sound of unbridled joy seldom breaks the quiet of the British Museum's great Arched Room, which holds its collection of 130,000 Assyrian cuneiform tablets, dating back 5,000 years.

But Michael Jursa, a visiting professor from Vienna, let out such a cry...He had made what has been called the most important find in Biblical archaeology for 100 years, a discovery that supports the view that the historical books of the Old Testament are based on fact.

Searching for Babylonian financial accounts among the tablets, Prof Jursa suddenly came across a name he half remembered - Nabu-sharrussu-ukin, described there in a hand 2,500 years old, as "the chief eunuch" of Nebuchadnezzar II, king of Babylon.

Prof Jursa, an Assyriologist, checked the Old Testament and there in chapter 39 of the Book of Jeremiah, he found, spelled differently, the same name - Nebo-Sarsekim.

Nebo-Sarsekim, according to Jeremiah, was Nebuchadnezzar II's "chief officer" and was with him at the siege of Jerusalem in 587 BC, when the Babylonians overran the city.

The small tablet, the size of "a packet of 10 cigarettes" according to Irving Finkel, a British Museum expert, is a bill of receipt acknowledging Nabu-sharrussu-ukin's payment of 0.75 kg of gold to a temple in Babylon.

The tablet is dated to the 10th year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II, 595BC, 12 years before the siege of Jerusalem.

Evidence from non-Biblical sources of people named in the Bible is not unknown, but Nabu-sharrussu-ukin would have been a relatively insignificant figure.

"This is a fantastic discovery, a world-class find," Dr Finkel said yesterday. "If Nebo-Sarsekim existed, which other lesser figures in the Old Testament existed? A throwaway detail in the Old Testament turns out to be accurate and true. I think that it means that the whole of the narrative [of Jeremiah] takes on a new kind of power."

Cuneiform is the oldest known form of writing and was commonly used in the Middle East between 3,200 BC and the second century AD. It was created by pressing a wedge-shaped instrument, usually a cut reed, into moist clay.

The full translation of the tablet reads: (Regarding) 1.5 minas (0.75 kg) of gold, the property of Nabu-sharrussu-ukin, the chief eunuch, which he sent via Arad-Banitu the eunuch to [the temple] Esangila: Arad-Banitu has delivered [it] to Esangila. In the presence of Bel-usat, son of Alpaya, the royal bodyguard, [and of] Nadin, son of Marduk-zer-ibni. Month XI, day 18, year 10 [of] Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon."http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/11/ntablet111.xml

"Joining amino acids into a growing protein chain requires energy and the removal of a water molecule (the removal of an -OH group from the end of the chain and an -H from the incoming amino acid). Therefore this cannot occur spontaneously in a watery environment, such as a primordial `soup'" (Raven & Johnson, 1995, p.69).

Sunday, January 13, 2008

"A cell is generally defined as a single unit or compartment, enclosed by a border or wall, which is usually part of a bigger structure. In biological terms, cells are the structural and functional units of all living organisms. Living cells illustrate overwhelming evidence of intelligent design due to their many irreducibly complex molecular machines. Cells are so tremendously complicated that we are only beginning to understand their internal workings, and indeed many functions within the cell still remain a total mystery.

Some organisms, such as bacteria, are unicellular, consisting of a single cell. Other organisms, such as humans, are multicellular, or have many cells—an estimated 100,000,000,000,000 cells! Each cell is an amazing world unto itself: it can take in nutrients, convert these nutrients into energy, carry out specialized functions, and reproduce as necessary. Even more amazing is that each cell stores its own set of instructions for carrying out each of these activities.

In the early twentieth century, the cell was viewed as essentially a blob of protoplasm. It was simply an unobservable collection of gelatin molecules, the inner workings of which were not yet understood. On the other hand, 21st century technology reveals that although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, the entire cell is incredibly integrated and each part works as part of a team.

An analogy sometimes used, is the comparison of a cell to a city. For instance, the workers can be compared to the protein, the powerplant to the mitochondria, the roads to the actin fibres and microtubules, the trucks to the Kinosin and Dynein, the factories to the ribosomes, the library to the nucleic acid, the recycling centre to the Lysosome, the police to the chaperones, and the post office to the golgi apparatus.

As technology increases, science continuously opens black boxes within already opened ones, and as more and more of these are being exposed, the phenomenal complexity of the whole system pushes evolutionary theories to breaking point."http://creationwiki.org/Cell_biology

Saturday, January 12, 2008

"When you see a sundial or a water-clock, you see that it tells the time by design and not by chance. How then can you imagine that the universe as a whole is devoid of purpose and intelligence, when it embraces everything, including these artifacts themselves and their artificers?" (Cicero, De Natura Deorum, ii. 34)

Friday, January 11, 2008

"One can ask for nothing better in such a pass than a noisy and stubborn opponent, and this Pasteur had in the naturalist Felix Pouchet, whose arguments before the French Academy of Sciences drove Pasteur to more and more rigorous experiments. When he had finished, nothing remained of the belief in spontaneous generation. We tell this story to beginning students of biology as though it represents a triumph of reason over mysticism. In fact it is very nearly the opposite. The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a `philosophical necessity.' It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing." (Wald G., "The origin of life," Scientific American, Vol. 191, No. 2, August 1954, pp.45-53, pp.45-46)

Thursday, January 10, 2008

"The search for ribozymes evokes the same feeling of achievement and beauty in me that I get when I see a skilled golfer playing a difficult course at well under par. To imagine that related events could take place on their own appears as likely as the idea that the golf ball could play its own way around the course without the golfer. We can, of course imagine that natural forces would lend a helping hand. A hurricane could move the ball down the course, and occasional floods might "putt" the ball into the hole. A small earthquake could then remove it and place it on the next tee. Perhaps each of these events could be simulated if we tried hard enough. But to insist that all of these events be linked together and move in an appropriate direction puts our origin into the realm of Morowitz's odds [(10 to the 100,000,000,000th power) to 1]." (Shapiro R., "Planetary Dreams: The Quest to Discover Life beyond Earth," John Wiley & Sons: New York NY, 1999, p.104).

Tuesday, January 8, 2008

"Paleobiologist Mary Higby Schweitzer sent shockwaves through the scientific community in 2005 when she announced she had discovered remains of blood cells and soft tissue in a T-rex specimen.The lack of deterioration in a specimen thought to walk the earth 65 million years ago “raised the profound question of how these specimens could keep their biological integrity over the eons of time without degrading,” said Tom DeRosa, Executive Director of the Creation Studies Institute. Schweitzer’s find strengthens arguments for a young earth, rather than an earth billions of years old, as argued by evolutionists, he said.“Evolutionists try to excuse this young earth evidence,” he added, “by suggesting perfect conditions existed to preserve these specimens over millions of years, but never come cost to explaining what these ideal conditions were.”

“This past July and August, two teams totaling close to 30 people participated in CSI’s third annual “Dino Dig.” The two teams excavated on a 200-foot hill in the Hell Creek formation near Glendive, Montana. The dig site was 80 miles from where Schweitzer’s T-rex was found.”

“Astonishingly, mixed in with the dinosaur bones in this dry region was an unusual assortment of turtle shells, crocodile teeth, and fish scales, indicating that marine life was present alongside dinosaur bones some time in the past.”

“Such finds indicate that there is much evidence to support the bible’s account of a worldwide flood, as stated in Genesis, with the flood waters giving us this unprecedented and unusual mix,” DeRosa said.”

"Gerald Joyce and Leslie Orgel-two scientists who have worked long and hard on the origin of life problem - call RNA `the prebiotic chemist's nightmare.' They are brutally frank: `Scientists interested in the origins of life seem to divide neatly into two classes. The first, usually but not always molecular biologists, believe that RNA must have been the first replicating molecule and that chemists are exaggerating the difficulties of nucleotide synthesis.... The second group of scientists are much more pessimistic. They believe that the de novo appearance of oligonucleotides on the primitive earth would have been a near miracle. (The authors subscribe to this latter view). Time will tell which is correct. [Joyce G.F. & Orgel L.E., "Prospects for Understanding the Origin of the RNA World," in "The RNA World," Gesteland R.F. & Atkins J.F., eds. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor NY, 1993, p.19] Even if the miracle-like coincidence should occur and RNA be produced, however, Joyce and Orgel see nothing but obstacles ahead. In an article section entitled "Another Chicken-and-Egg Paradox" they write the following: `This discussion ... has, in a sense, focused on a straw man: the myth of a self-replicating RNA molecule that arose de novo from a soup of random polynucleotides. Not only is such a notion unrealistic in light of our current understanding of prebiotic chemistry, but it should strain the credulity of even an optimist's view of RNAs catalytic potential.... Without evolution it appears unlikely that a self-replicating ribozyme could arise, but without some form of self-replication there is no way to conduct an evolutionary search for the first, primitive self-replicating ribozyme.' [Joyce & Orgel, 1993, p.13] In other words, the miracle that produced chemically intact RNA would not be enough. Since the vast majority of RNAs do not have useful catalytic properties, a second miraculous coincidence would be needed to get just the right chemically intact RNA." (Behe M.J., "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution," Free Press: New York NY, 1996, pp.171-172)

Sunday, January 6, 2008

“Students all over the world are taught the historical and scientific greatness of the disproof of spontaneous generation (life coming from nonliving matter). Redi, Pasteur, and Spallanzani proved that life can only come from preexisting life. Ideas such as mice coming from dirty undergarments were finally silenced. How ironic it is when these same educators turn right around and assert that spontaneous generation was the mechanism by which life arose! The modern concept of organic evolution, then, is actually nothing more than a refined regression to sixteenth-century scientific mentality, where spontaneous generation is again proposed.”

Saturday, January 5, 2008

In College, I took a World Religions class, and I was required to read a book by Freud that 'proved' that God does not exist. Wow, did he put forth an incredibly powerful argument! The best argument for the non-existence of God that I've ever heard! After I read it, for the very first time in my life, I seriously doubted the existence of God. But, after looking back on my life, and all the incredible miracles that have happened in my life, as well as the incredible miracles that have happened in the lives of family members and friends, plus all the things that were just too numerous and too incredible to be coincidences, I once again had full confidence that not only does God exist, but He (the Holy Spirit) dwells within me! The funny thing is, from the second I finished the book and began doubting God's existence, to the moment I regained full confidence in His existence, was a period of maybe 3 to 5 minutes! LOL! That's how long the best argument I've ever heard for Atheism made me doubt God's existence!

Friday, January 4, 2008

Years ago, I was discussing Evolution vs. Creation with a co-worker, who was an Evolutionist. The owner of the company interrupted our conversation, telling me, "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. That's all you need to know." He explained that it took him 4 years of college to learn those 3 words. I informed him that the idea that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" (which basically means that the stages of an embryo prove evolution...for example, it used to be thought that an embryo first developed gills, but it was later discovered that those were not gills at all) was shown to be false over 100 years ago! He had no reply. I should have asked him how many years ago it was that he went to college! (LOL!)

Thursday, January 3, 2008

Just think about a spider's web. That is a complicated geometric design. And it is created, usually, in a perfect manner. Even though I majored in Drawing and Painting in college, and even though I am a Graphic Artist at work, I could not draw a design that perfectly, freehand. So, does that mean that, even though God has gifted me with some art talent, in addition to the fact that I've had years of training and years of experience, that a little spider is a better artist or designer than I am? (If so, then the company I work at should fire me and hire a spider instead! LOL!) An Evolutionist might say that the spider has had millions of years of natural selection to develop that, but hey, according to the theory of Evolution, humans have had millions of years of natural selection as well! And humans build things too. Yet a spider, using only his body, continually creates geometrically complex advanced shapes that few, if any, human adults could perfectly duplicate, without the aid of machines, or tools such as a pencil and ruler...and even with a pencil and ruler, it would be very complicated, and possibly even impossible, for most people to exactly duplicate.

Wednesday, January 2, 2008

"...there has been an ongoing debate within the scientific community, largely among individuals who believe in evolution, about the validity of evolution as a scientific principle. The statement published in the Humanist suggests that under the pressure of current criticism leveled at evolution, basic scientific values may be overlooked or given secondary place over other factors."

Tuesday, January 1, 2008

"Hans Reichenbach in The Rise of Scientific Philosophy (1951, p. 89) emphasizes the necessity of a predictive quality for science:

A mere report of relations observed in the past cannot be called knowledge; if knowledge is to reveal objective relations of physical objects, it must include reliable predictions. A radical empiricism, therefore, denies the possibility of knowledge.

The concept of predictability and subsequent testability has prompted the noted scientific philosopher Karl Popper to further emphasize that if an explanation cannot be adequately tested, it is not scientific. The concept must be testable (i.e., falsifiable) to qualify. Any kind of explanation will not do; it must be amenable to a testing process. If it survives testing, it can qualify. In our magnet example, we might propose that objects of only a certain color (and not a magnet) attract iron. If a red magnet were found to work, we could further test the notion by using a wooden block of the same color as the magnet and thus disprove the color theory. Popper in his book The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1968, p. 40) is emphatic on the matter of falsification. He states:

But I shall certainly admit a system as empirical or scientific only if it is capable of being tested by experience. These considerations suggest that not the verifiability but the falsifiability of a system to be taken as a criterion of demarcation.

The idea that a genuine scientific idea must have the consistency that gives it predictive value, and the potential for falsification, has received a great deal of attention during the past few years among scientific philosophers and evolutionists. There is very little disagreement with this aspect of science as enunciated by Popper, and there is genuine concern as to how to apply this principle to the theory of evolution. The unrepeatable or untestable events postulated for evolution are not amenable to evaluation on the basis of consistency and prediction. Thus the concept of evolution as a principle of science is being questioned at a most fundamental level. Does it really qualify as a scientific principle? Some examples of deficiencies follow.

The concept of natural selection by survival of the fittest is the basic evolutionary mechanism. This concept does not qualify as a scientific principle, since fitness is equivalent to survival. Here we have a case of circular reasoning; no consistency or predictive value can be tested. According to this idea, organisms have survived through the evolutionary process because they are better fit, and the way one tells they are better fit is that they survive. A number of evolutionary scholars have labeled the principle of survival of the fittest a tautology (e.g., Waddington 1957, Eden 1967, Peters 1976). Popper (1963) attacks the unfalsifiable nature of the concept and concludes:

If, more especially, we accept that statistical definition of fitness which defines fitness by actual survival, then the survival of the fittest becomes tautological, and irrefutable.

The concept of survival of the fittest of itself does not necessarily imply any evolution. Would not the fittest survive, whether they evolved or were created? The noted evolutionist Mayr (1976, p.3) speaks of "an all-powerful natural selection." Platnick (1977) wonders if there is any difference in this kind of explanation as compared to that of an all-powerful Creator."